THE FIRST $1,000,000 111 
COURTS AGAINST ASSESSMENTS. 
“I am advised that under the decision of the courts these 
assessments cannot be collected. So far the losses discov- 
ered aggregate $1,000. 
“This matter you will understand is a serious one to the 
city. Believing, however, that an adjustment can be made 
satisfactory to you and the county of Essex, I respectfully 
request that you attend a conference in my office Friday 
morning at 10 o’clock. An invitation has also been sent the 
counsel of your board. 
“Pending the conference, the ordinance of the Board of 
Street and Water Commissioners vacating certain streets for 
park purposes will be held under consideration. 
“Very truly yours, 
“James M. Szrymour, Mayor.” 
There was apparently no objection made to closing the 
streets, but, as this letter indicates, both boards were, so to 
speak, fencing for position. There were questions both of 
ethics and equity involved. The city officials were naturally 
desirous of recovering if possible on the assessments as they 
appeared on the official books, and to obtain as large a con- 
tribution as could be secured toward the costly sewer. The 
courts had ruled out the assessment claims as against the 
commission, but they were not omitted as a factor in the 
negotiations. After various conferences, $40,000 was the 
proportion or share the city officials asked the commission 
to contribute toward the Millbrook sewer expense. 
The commissioners contended that the assessment matter 
was in no way under consideration; that the expenditures 
for park improvements were of great benefit to the city; and 
that to divert public funds from the purpose thus designated 
to pay for municipal necessities such as drainage, would be 
an unwarranted procedure, and, under the circumstances 
then existing, on the principle of “robbing Peter to pay 
Paul.” 
